Christians: They were banned!

[Booko]

If being 'of the world' (a very silly expression as we are all of the world) means that we are tolerant and non judgmental then I want to be 'of the world' always!

Gee, whatever happened to the part in red letters in my Bible, where it says we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves?

That _doesn't_ mean that we have to believe that all the behaviour is ok, but even if it isn't ok, who nominated any of US as the omniscient God?

 

[sojourner]

Gee, whatever happened to the part in red letters in my Bible, where it says we are supposed to love our neighbors as ourselves?

That _doesn't_ mean that we have to believe that all the behaviour is ok, but even if it isn't ok, who nominated any of US as the omniscient God?

James Dobson?...

 

[Endless]

I don't have a problem with any of the scriptures, in and of themselves. It's the baseless interpretation of scripture and the irresponsible praxis that follows that gives me the willies. From the study of cultural anthropology, I know that these references to homosexuality were not meant as moral judgment (sin), but as cultural taboo (social norms). These taboos do not exist in modern Western culture, because our culture is not shame and honor based according to the female and male sexual identities, as has historically been the case in the culture of the Middle East.

The problem here is that sin does not change based on the culture. The Bible teaches that Sin is rebellion against God and what he has ordered - God does not change and therefore what is sin cannot change. There are no other examples of cultural taboos in the Bible which weren't classified as sin - there were uncleanness rules whereby a person had to declare himself to a priest and it was a certain number of days before he was clean again - yet these were sanitation.
Let me ask you a question Sojourner - what about honouring your parents? This also something that should not exist in our culture? What about murder - ever seen 'The Island' - at what stage is our culture going to make murder ok? It's started already. What about lying? That acceptable - when will culture change this? I could go through all of the ten commandments - at what point will culture change to make these acceptable? At what point will these change and not become sin? I assume you are ok with spirit worship - that forms a huge part of many cultures, what about human sacrifice? You think that isn't a part or was a part of the cultures in the days of the Israelites invading the promised land? God still said that was an abomination in his sight -even though it was part of the people's culture to do so. It's exactly the same with Sodom - do you think it wasn't normal for the people of that town to engage in homosexuality? Then why did God say that their sin cries out to him - so much so that he was going to destroy the cities?
It makes no difference on what the culture permits or says is ok - at the end of the day God knows what is sin and what is not, it is not up to us to decide. You can interpret homosexuality as only being a sin in that culture - but not now, however you can also apply the same logic to a load of other sins - where will you end? It is a dangerous path to embark upon when you decide for yourself whether what the Bible clearly classifies as a sin - is a sin or isn't.

No, it's not your opinion that trumps mine -- neither can you say that God's word trumps my opinion, because that implies that your interpretation of God's word is the "correct" one, and mine is the "incorrect" one. Assuming that you are right and someone else is wrong is arrogant.

You do nothing in the name of the Church? You do everything in the name of the Church, because you, as a believer, are part of the Church. You are an ambassador of the Church, and whatever you do reflects on the Church. You cannnot simply divorce yourself from the Church whenever it suits you.

The only problem with this being that i am not interpreting scripture - i am taking it at face value - what it says, it says. There is no reason for me to have to interpret (find a meaning) for the verses on homosexuality - they say what they say. So i am not assuming i am right, i am assuming that God is right.

I do absolutely nothing in the name of the Church Sojourner - yes i am a part of the church, but i do everything for God. I am not an ambassador of the church - i represent Christ - 'i am therefore Christ's Ambassador.' I am not divorcing myself from the church whatsoever, that would be impossible to do.

 

[Booko]

The problem here is that sin does not change based on the culture.

Um, actually I think it does. Check out Leviticus and compare it with the NT.

Though I would agree this far -- there are some very basics that don't change. They don't seem to change across all the major religions, be they from the East or West.

 

[Endless]

There's still no difference - nothing shown to be sin in the OT was overturned and shown not to be sin in the NT. If you have examples then please provide them. However be careful about unclean - since that refers to santition, a common misconception that this means sin.
But yeah you are right about the basics - there seems to be a moral code written in each one of us, we are able to tell right from wrong.

 

[sojourner]

The problem here is that sin does not change based on the culture. The Bible teaches that Sin is rebellion against God and what he has ordered - God does not change and therefore what is sin cannot change. There are no other examples of cultural taboos in the Bible which weren't classified as sin - there were uncleanness rules whereby a person had to declare himself to a priest and it was a certain number of days before he was clean again - yet these were sanitation.
Let me ask you a question Sojourner - what about honouring your parents? This also something that should not exist in our culture? What about murder - ever seen 'The Island' - at what stage is our culture going to make murder ok? It's started already. What about lying? That acceptable - when will culture change this? I could go through all of the ten commandments - at what point will culture change to make these acceptable? At what point will these change and not become sin? I assume you are ok with spirit worship - that forms a huge part of many cultures, what about human sacrifice? You think that isn't a part or was a part of the cultures in the days of the Israelites invading the promised land? God still said that was an abomination in his sight -even though it was part of the people's culture to do so. It's exactly the same with Sodom - do you think it wasn't normal for the people of that town to engage in homosexuality? Then why did God say that their sin cries out to him - so much so that he was going to destroy the cities?
It makes no difference on what the culture permits or says is ok - at the end of the day God knows what is sin and what is not, it is not up to us to decide. You can interpret homosexuality as only being a sin in that culture - but not now, however you can also apply the same logic to a load of other sins - where will you end? It is a dangerous path to embark upon when you decide for yourself whether what the Bible clearly classifies as a sin - is a sin or isn't.


The only problem with this being that i am not interpreting scripture - i am taking it at face value - what it says, it says. There is no reason for me to have to interpret (find a meaning) for the verses on homosexuality - they say what they say. So i am not assuming i am right, i am assuming that God is right.

I do absolutely nothing in the name of the Church Sojourner - yes i am a part of the church, but i do everything for God. I am not an ambassador of the church - i represent Christ - 'i am therefore Christ's Ambassador.' I am not divorcing myself from the church whatsoever, that would be impossible to do.

1) You need to understand what I'm saying here. The Biblical writers who wrote the few passages about homosexuality did not think of it as moral corruption, but as cultural taboo. In the culture of the ancient Middle-East, honor and shame were embedded through sexual roles in the social understanding of the society. Men embodied honor, and were bound to treat other equal men, and be treated by other men, with honor. Women embodied shame, and were bound to live out of that shame. Because women were shameful, they were not equal to men, who were honorable. Women were not bound to keep religious law -- their men kept it for them, because women found their honor through their men -- not through themselves.

It was, therefore, a shameful act -- out of social character -- for a man to "bend over and take it" like a woman from an equal. Not a moral error, but a social one! That's the way the writers understood it. That was their mind set when they wrote about it. If they portrayed it as sin, it was because the act was shameful in their culture. We don't embody shame and honor in the same way in our culture. We don't assign those attributes through sexual roles, in the way the ancient people of the Middle-East did. Therefore, in our culture, men and women are equal, and embody both shame and honor equally. It is not, in our culture, shameful for a man to act submissively in his sexual role.

2) The problem is, you are interpreting, whether you think you are, or not. Your interpretive method is simply to read what's written on the page and take it at face value, as you understand it. That's an inadequate method. As I've shown quite clearly in my first paragraph, written words do not always simply "say" what we think they do. We tend to read them through the lens of our understanding, our world view and our cultural mannerisms. In order to get at what these ancient writers meant by what they wrote, we have to "get inside their heads" -- read through the lens of the ancient Middle-East, instead of through our own lens. That's the only way we can come to understand what God is truly "saying" through these ancient writers. In truth, is it not you who are treading on a dangerous path, deciding for yourself, without attempting to really understand what was going on in the mind of the writer, what God does or does not say? You are, in essence, assuming that you're right, when you do that.

3) everything you do is done in the name of the Church, because you are part of the Church, and representative of the Church. Every person in the Church is part of the one Body of Christ. We are his arms, legs, hands and mouth int he world. the popular question, "What would Jesus do?" can be answered simply in every case: Jesus does whatever we do, for we act on his behalf. That's why I think it's very, very important how we judge and treat others, for we act on Christ's behalf -- whatever we do -- and the world is watching. The world sees you act, and they say, "That's how Christians act. That's how the Body of Christ acts. That's how Christ, himself, acts."

 

[Endless]

1) You need to understand what I'm saying here. The Biblical writers who wrote the few passages about homosexuality did not think of it as moral corruption, but as cultural taboo. In the culture of the ancient Middle-East, honor and shame were embedded through sexual roles in the social understanding of the society. Men embodied honor, and were bound to treat other equal men, and be treated by other men, with honor. Women embodied shame, and were bound to live out of that shame. Because women were shameful, they were not equal to men, who were honorable. Women were not bound to keep religious law -- their men kept it for them, because women found their honor through their men -- not through themselves.

It was, therefore, a shameful act -- out of social character -- for a man to "bend over and take it" like a woman from an equal. Not a moral error, but a social one! That's the way the writers understood it. That was their mind set when they wrote about it. If they portrayed it as sin, it was because the act was shameful in their culture. We don't embody shame and honor in the same way in our culture. We don't assign those attributes through sexual roles, in the way the ancient people of the Middle-East did. Therefore, in our culture, men and women are equal, and embody both shame and honor equally. It is not, in our culture, shameful for a man to act submissively in his sexual role.

Your view on the Bible Sojourner seems to me to be not that it is the inspired word of God - but simply what man wrote down and God had nothing to do with what went into it or what did not. I believe it is God's word - therefore if the Bible says that GOD says homosexuality is wrong - then it is wrong regardless of the culture or not.
Again let me elaborate - the culture of that time was not that homosexuality was wrong. The people of Sodom practised it openly - it was widespread, the writer of that time was well aware of the practise of homosexuality and sex with animals. Were it culturally taboo, then in that culture it would not have been practised - the fact that it was widespread and the writer had such a knowledge of the sexual immorality of that time shows that in that culture it was pervasive.
Again your position doesn't wash because Paul wrote to a people of a culture where homosexuality was not taboo - and he condemns it - not as a social taboo since it was not, but as sin against God.
This shows that it doesn't matter what the culture - homosexuality is taught as a sin by God. God doesn't change therefore what is sin to him cannot become not sinful a few centuries down the line.

What about the cultures where child sacrifice was not only permitted but not seen as a sin? God condemns this as sin. But are you trying to tell me Sojourner that this was also a cultural taboo - and since that other culture permitted it, they were not sinning themselves?
It doesn't work like that Sojourner - it never has. There has never been a distinction between what is sin and what is cultural taboo. I mean, perhaps murdering was just a cultural taboo to the Israelites - does that mean that isn't sin?
What about adultery? That is pretty much prevalent in our culture isn't it? I guess that was another cultural taboo and isn't a sin now.

Where will this stop?

 

[Adstar]

It will stop when Jesus returns and judges the world.

2 Timoty 4
3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; 4 and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

How true the prophesy. Come Lord Jesus come.


All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[sojourner]

Your view on the Bible Sojourner seems to me to be not that it is the inspired word of God - but simply what man wrote down and God had nothing to do with what went into it or what did not. I believe it is God's word - therefore if the Bible says that GOD says homosexuality is wrong - then it is wrong regardless of the culture or not.
Again let me elaborate - the culture of that time was not that homosexuality was wrong. The people of Sodom practised it openly - it was widespread, the writer of that time was well aware of the practise of homosexuality and sex with animals. Were it culturally taboo, then in that culture it would not have been practised - the fact that it was widespread and the writer had such a knowledge of the sexual immorality of that time shows that in that culture it was pervasive.
Again your position doesn't wash because Paul wrote to a people of a culture where homosexuality was not taboo - and he condemns it - not as a social taboo since it was not, but as sin against God.
This shows that it doesn't matter what the culture - homosexuality is taught as a sin by God. God doesn't change therefore what is sin to him cannot become not sinful a few centuries down the line.

What about the cultures where child sacrifice was not only permitted but not seen as a sin? God condemns this as sin. But are you trying to tell me Sojourner that this was also a cultural taboo - and since that other culture permitted it, they were not sinning themselves?
It doesn't work like that Sojourner - it never has. There has never been a distinction between what is sin and what is cultural taboo. I mean, perhaps murdering was just a cultural taboo to the Israelites - does that mean that isn't sin?
What about adultery? That is pretty much prevalent in our culture isn't it? I guess that was another cultural taboo and isn't a sin now.

Where will this stop?

Your viewpoint of the Bible seems to be that it was simply written down by God, without human input. Utilizing that viewpoint, I think you put the cart before the horse. You're saying that the Bible informed the social norms of the day. I'm saying that, in this case, it was the social norms that informed the writing of scripture. I'm sure you don't agree with that.

If the social norms as I have described them did not exist, why would Lot have sent his daughters out to the crowd to be molested, in place of his male guests? Because it was socially acceptable to have his shameful daughters in a shameful position -- it was not socially acceptable to have his honorable guests in a shameful position.
Drugs are practiced widely in our culture, but they're mostly illegal...the ubiquitousness of an activity does not validate it's social acceptability.

The Bible says it was taught as a sin by God, because the writer (who was immersed in that culture) saw it as wrong -- and therefore, sin. Sin and social convention usually go hand in hand...and, you'll find that it's usually the cultural understanding that informs the religious morals...and not the other way around. What about slavery? The Bible actually condones slavery...and genocide. But, even though the Bible condones those activities, you will conveniently find a way to negate them, because they are not prevalent in our society now. People can always use or excuse something to their advantage. The problem occurs when something that is not an absolute is twisted into an absolute...like the Bible, for example. If you take an absolute stance against homosexuality,then you have to take an absolute stance for slavery, if you see the Bible as an absolute.

It stops when we stop abusing the scriptures.

 

[Endless]

Your viewpoint of the Bible seems to be that it was simply written down by God, without human input.

Not at all - of course i know that man wrote the Bible. But they did not do it independently of God - he is the author, merely leading them in what they were to write. Therefore nothing in the Bible is a mistake - it is there for a purpose. Why would God have them write that homosexuality was a sin - if it wasn't?

If the social norms as I have described them did not exist, why would Lot have sent his daughters out to the crowd to be molested, in place of his male guests? Because it was socially acceptable to have his shameful daughters in a shameful position -- it was not socially acceptable to have his honorable guests in a shameful position.
Drugs are practiced widely in our culture, but they're mostly illegal...the ubiquitousness of an activity does not validate it's social acceptability.

Again Sojourner you are coming between a rock and a hard place. If it was sociallly acceptable to have his shameful daughters in a shameful position (which it wasn't - beside the case). Then why did God destroy Sodom? If this was their culture - homosexuality and sexual immorality, for what reason did God destroy them?

Let me tell you exactly what God said:

Ge 18:20 And the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grave,

Hang on, homosexuality and sexual immorality being part of the culture of the people who lived in this area - why does God call something that wasn't culturally taboo 'their sin'? God destroys that city - because of their sin.
Now if God sees homosexuality as a sin - does what God sees as a sin then change according to the way our culture changes? Do we define what is and isn't sin - or does God.

You decide Sojourner, you cannot have it both ways. Either God was right and homosexuality was a sin or you are right and homosexuality is not a sin in God's eyes (because it's a cultural thing). If you are right then please explain why God destroyed the cities because 'their sin is very grave'?
Either you are right or God is right, there is no inbetween, so which will it be Sojourner?

BTW. You are incorrect on slavery and genocide. The Bible does not comment on the moral position of slavery. You should also be aware of the difference between slave labour and having a slave if you are into the cultures of the people of that time.
Secondly genocide - There is only one stage in the history of the Israelites and that is when they entered the promised land. Bible records God as having said he would use the Israelites to punish the sin of the people of that land. They had loads of time to repent and change their ways. God just used the Israelites as his method, rather than the fire like he did at Sodom.

 

[sojourner]

Not at all - of course i know that man wrote the Bible. But they did not do it independently of God - he is the author, merely leading them in what they were to write. Therefore nothing in the Bible is a mistake - it is there for a purpose. Why would God have them write that homosexuality was a sin - if it wasn't?


Again Sojourner you are coming between a rock and a hard place. If it was sociallly acceptable to have his shameful daughters in a shameful position (which it wasn't - beside the case). Then why did God destroy Sodom? If this was their culture - homosexuality and sexual immorality, for what reason did God destroy them?

Let me tell you exactly what God said:


Hang on, homosexuality and sexual immorality being part of the culture of the people who lived in this area - why does God call something that wasn't culturally taboo 'their sin'? God destroys that city - because of their sin.
Now if God sees homosexuality as a sin - does what God sees as a sin then change according to the way our culture changes? Do we define what is and isn't sin - or does God.

You decide Sojourner, you cannot have it both ways. Either God was right and homosexuality was a sin or you are right and homosexuality is not a sin in God's eyes (because it's a cultural thing). If you are right then please explain why God destroyed the cities because 'their sin is very grave'?
Either you are right or God is right, there is no inbetween, so which will it be Sojourner?

BTW. You are incorrect on slavery and genocide. The Bible does not comment on the moral position of slavery. You should also be aware of the difference between slave labour and having a slave if you are into the cultures of the people of that time.
Secondly genocide - There is only one stage in the history of the Israelites and that is when they entered the promised land. Bible records God as having said he would use the Israelites to punish the sin of the people of that land. They had loads of time to repent and change their ways. God just used the Israelites as his method, rather than the fire like he did at Sodom.

So...what you're saying is that God told humans exactly what to write, word for word, letter for letter? I don't believe that. When Paul wrote his letters, now part of the Bible, he didn't originally write them to be part of the Bible. He didn't see them in that way, and that end was not his intent. he wrote letters to congregations, (much like bishops today write letters to churches. Was Paul inspired? I have no doubt! Was Paul merely a dictophone, parroting what "God said?" No! As I said before, the writers saw homosexuality as sin because homosexuality could have destroyed the cultural well-being. Since the culture at that time was more theocratic, sin and social ethics were very closely tied together. The same is not true for our culture.

God destroyed Sodom because they were sexually immoral. Promiscuity -- under the guise of any sexual persuasion -- is sinful. Many men wanting to gang-rape someone is sinful...regardless of who they gang-rape. But...in that culture, it was less abominable for a daughter to be raped by a man than for a male guest to be raped by a man. The head of the home had a greater duty toward his male guest than toward his daughter -- very different from our culture! That doesn't mean that raping the daughter was OK, at all! It does mean that the head of the house had to make a decision that would cause the least amount of social damage, hence, sending the daughters out to replace the male guests.

It's not what God changes -- it's our perception of God that changes, as we change. Most people no longer view God as a tribal warrior-God. And so we relate to God differently now. My contention is that the early writers perceived homosexuality as sin -- not God. They wrote the Bible...and they wrote it according to their viewpoint.

I'm not attempting to have it both ways. Homosexuality is a cultural thing. Homosexuality does not damge our culture fundamentally, in the same way that it would have damaged the ancient, Middle-East culture. Homosexuality impacted those people on a fundamental level that does not exist in our society. Sodom's sin was grave because of the promiscuity, not because of homosexuality per se. I'm sure that homosexuality was included by the writers of the account, because of the fundamental impact homosexuality had on that culture. Standing at a distance, and having a more objective viewpoint, we are able to separate sexual sin from socio-sexual angst, unlike the writers of the account.

Your last paragraph: By its lack of moral commentary, the Bible accepts slavery as part of the culture. God also definitely tells the Israelites to completely kill off every man, woman and child in several locations. God killed off the firstborn of the Egyptians, cutting the bloodlines, effectively committing genocide. Are you saying that, because those atrocities appear in the Bible, that God is capable and more than willing to do the same acts today, to, say, the Iraqis? Or to Al Qaeda? Most people don't believe in a vengeful God any more, that uses people to wreak revenge on other people. We've grown beyond seeing God as vengeful against God's children...I hope.

The problem here is that you and I have a basic difference. You see the Bible as absolute. I do not. Again, if you're going to see the Bible as absolute, and if the Bible condones slavery as culturally acceptable, then you'd have to argue in favor of slavery today...if changing culture can play no part in Biblical interpretation...if changing culture can inform our interpretation, then my point is proven.

 

[Endless]

Hi Sojourner,

Concerning scripture:

2 Timothy 3:16
'All scripture is God breathed....

When Paul wrote his letters, now part of the Bible, he didn't originally write them to be part of the Bible. He didn't see them in that way, and that end was not his intent. he wrote letters to congregations, (much like bishops today write letters to churches.

Interesting that you write this, for this is what the Bible has to say about Paul's writings:

2Pe 3:15
'and consider that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation--as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you,
16 as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.'

Paul's writings were seen by Peter to be scripture. Perhaps you should further study this - where the apostles' writings to the churches seen by those churches to be scripture? The conclusion that one comes to is - yes they were. Therefore Paul was not merely writing a letter - he was writing scripture, as Peter gives testimony to.

Was Paul inspired? I have no doubt! Was Paul merely a dictophone, parroting what "God said?" No! As I said before, the writers saw homosexuality as sin because homosexuality could have destroyed the cultural well-being. Since the culture at that time was more theocratic, sin and social ethics were very closely tied together. The same is not true for our culture.

Paul was like you say not a dictophone - he was writing scripture which was inspired by God. All of what he wrote was inspired by God. Now you can tell that Paul understood he was writing scripture by what he writes in the following passage.

1Co 7:10 And to the married I command (not I, but the Lord), a woman not to be separated from her husband.
11 But if she is indeed separated, let her remain unmarried, or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to leave his wife.
12 But to the rest I speak, not the Lord, If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is pleased to dwell with him, do not let him put her away.
......1Co 7:40 But she is happier if she so remains, according to my judgment. And I also think that I have the Spirit of God.

Paul makes a clear distinction between what the Lord commands and his own personal advice (or viewpoint). He then writes at the end that he believes his viewpoint is correct - but he still stresses that it is his own and not the Lord's.

However for homosexuality, Paul makes no such distinction. Therefore is he inspired by the Lord in what he wrote here or not? What did he write?

Ro 1:26 For this cause, God gave them up to dishonorable affections. For even their women changed the natural use into that which is against nature.
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another; males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving in themselves the recompense which was fitting for their error.
28 And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do the things not right,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; being full of envy, murder, quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
30 backbiters, haters of God, insolent, proud, braggarts, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31 without discernment, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, unforgiving, unmerciful;
32 who, knowing the righteous order of God, that those practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but have pleasure in those practicing them.

At what point do you draw the line between inspiration and something that no longer applies? Was homosexuality culturally acceptable with the Romans of this time?
If so why does Paul under the inspiration of the Lord condemn it? It's not in his culture - therefore the Romans to which he where writing, he could not have written this if inspired by God. For God would not have observed the homosexuality of the Romans to be sin or shameful if it was culturally acceptable for them to do.
You see this is the problem - if scripture was inspired of God, then why would God inspire the writers to address other cultures and condemn what they were doing as sin? Because according to what you are saying, if it is culturally acceptable then it is not a sin.

Again i commented on the people of Canaan - in whose culture child sacrifice was acceptable. According to your position this was not a sin Sojourner. How could it be if culturally it was acceptable? But we have scripture inspired of God which records God as saying that homosexuality was a sin -even teaching it in the law. Inspired scripture says that God saw the child sacrifice that was being performed in another culture and said it was an abomination in his eyes. Now was that scripture inspired or not? Did God actually not see it as an abomination - for he mustn't have if your position is correct, since it was culturally acceptable for that people. So are you saying that that scripture was not inspired of God? Then you have a problem with the verse saying 'all scripture is God breathed - ie. inspired of God.

Now, let me follow your logic to it's conclusion.
If culturally acceptable things are not sin, then we have no set standard for what is and what is not sin. For one culture can have accepted child sacrifice as acceptable and another culture can have rejected it as sin. We must assume from your viewpoint that the culture that rejected it is incorrect and it is not a sin against God. This therefore means that today one can sacrifice a child and it not be regarded by God to be a sin - since sin is rebellion against God and since God doesn't change, if it wasn't rebellion back then - it isn't rebellion now.
God's say on what is and what isn't rebellion against himself never depends on the culture - it is fixed. It either is rebellion against God or it isn't. Therefore the changing of the cultures cannot change what is or what is not sin.
So tell me, is child sacrificing a sin or not? Is human sacrificing a sin or not? Is murder a gray area depending on what is culturally acceptable.
Do you therefore agree that a Muslim man can kill his wife or an apostate in an 'honour killing' and this not be regarded by God to be a sin, since this is culturally acceptable to him?

Your position Sojourner is a very dangerous one.

You will inevitably find that what is sin in God's eyes does not change, that scripture was all inspired by God and God could not have inspired something that was not true. Therefore if God inspires the writer to write that homosexuality is a sin - it makes no difference what culture he is from, if God inspires it then it is truth. What is and is not sin cannot change, because God does not change.

Briefly:

Your last paragraph: By its lack of moral commentary, the Bible accepts slavery as part of the culture. God also definitely tells the Israelites to completely kill off every man, woman and child in several locations. God killed off the firstborn of the Egyptians, cutting the bloodlines, effectively committing genocide. Are you saying that, because those atrocities appear in the Bible, that God is capable and more than willing to do the same acts today, to, say, the Iraqis? Or to Al Qaeda? Most people don't believe in a vengeful God any more, that uses people to wreak revenge on other people. We've grown beyond seeing God as vengeful against God's children...I hope.

The Bible merely acknowledges it's presence and gives guidelines to slavery (off topic to go into it in detail). God killing the firstborn in Egypt is hardly cutting the bloodlines - i'm sure family had other children to carry the bloodlines on. Yes, you must accept that God is capable of doing the same today - for the Bible says that God never changes. However the Bible says that God has now chosen to have mercy on us and hence the reason why for the present time no longer acts like this. Yes, you are also correct in God telling the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants in certain areas. The reason for this the Bible gives - to wipe out the abominations being carried out in those cultures. It was God's judgment on the child sacrificing and sexual immorality on top of a load of other stuff. Think of it being like gangerine, sometimes you have to remove a leg in order for the body to live on. God gave those people over 400 years to change - now that is patience. They did not and therefore God's judgement fell on them.

 

[sojourner]

Hi Sojourner,

Concerning scripture:



Interesting that you write this, for this is what the Bible has to say about Paul's writings:


Paul's writings were seen by Peter to be scripture. Perhaps you should further study this - where the apostles' writings to the churches seen by those churches to be scripture? The conclusion that one comes to is - yes they were. Therefore Paul was not merely writing a letter - he was writing scripture, as Peter gives testimony to.


Paul was like you say not a dictophone - he was writing scripture which was inspired by God. All of what he wrote was inspired by God. Now you can tell that Paul understood he was writing scripture by what he writes in the following passage.


Paul makes a clear distinction between what the Lord commands and his own personal advice (or viewpoint). He then writes at the end that he believes his viewpoint is correct - but he still stresses that it is his own and not the Lord's.

However for homosexuality, Paul makes no such distinction. Therefore is he inspired by the Lord in what he wrote here or not? What did he write?


At what point do you draw the line between inspiration and something that no longer applies? Was homosexuality culturally acceptable with the Romans of this time?
If so why does Paul under the inspiration of the Lord condemn it? It's not in his culture - therefore the Romans to which he where writing, he could not have written this if inspired by God. For God would not have observed the homosexuality of the Romans to be sin or shameful if it was culturally acceptable for them to do.
You see this is the problem - if scripture was inspired of God, then why would God inspire the writers to address other cultures and condemn what they were doing as sin? Because according to what you are saying, if it is culturally acceptable then it is not a sin.

Again i commented on the people of Canaan - in whose culture child sacrifice was acceptable. According to your position this was not a sin Sojourner. How could it be if culturally it was acceptable? But we have scripture inspired of God which records God as saying that homosexuality was a sin -even teaching it in the law. Inspired scripture says that God saw the child sacrifice that was being performed in another culture and said it was an abomination in his eyes. Now was that scripture inspired or not? Did God actually not see it as an abomination - for he mustn't have if your position is correct, since it was culturally acceptable for that people. So are you saying that that scripture was not inspired of God? Then you have a problem with the verse saying 'all scripture is God breathed - ie. inspired of God.

Now, let me follow your logic to it's conclusion.
If culturally acceptable things are not sin, then we have no set standard for what is and what is not sin. For one culture can have accepted child sacrifice as acceptable and another culture can have rejected it as sin. We must assume from your viewpoint that the culture that rejected it is incorrect and it is not a sin against God. This therefore means that today one can sacrifice a child and it not be regarded by God to be a sin - since sin is rebellion against God and since God doesn't change, if it wasn't rebellion back then - it isn't rebellion now.
God's say on what is and what isn't rebellion against himself never depends on the culture - it is fixed. It either is rebellion against God or it isn't. Therefore the changing of the cultures cannot change what is or what is not sin.
So tell me, is child sacrificing a sin or not? Is human sacrificing a sin or not? Is murder a gray area depending on what is culturally acceptable.
Do you therefore agree that a Muslim man can kill his wife or an apostate in an 'honour killing' and this not be regarded by God to be a sin, since this is culturally acceptable to him?

Your position Sojourner is a very dangerous one.

You will inevitably find that what is sin in God's eyes does not change, that scripture was all inspired by God and God could not have inspired something that was not true. Therefore if God inspires the writer to write that homosexuality is a sin - it makes no difference what culture he is from, if God inspires it then it is truth. What is and is not sin cannot change, because God does not change.

Briefly:


The Bible merely acknowledges it's presence and gives guidelines to slavery (off topic to go into it in detail). God killing the firstborn in Egypt is hardly cutting the bloodlines - i'm sure family had other children to carry the bloodlines on. Yes, you must accept that God is capable of doing the same today - for the Bible says that God never changes. However the Bible says that God has now chosen to have mercy on us and hence the reason why for the present time no longer acts like this. Yes, you are also correct in God telling the Israelites to wipe out the inhabitants in certain areas. The reason for this the Bible gives - to wipe out the abominations being carried out in those cultures. It was God's judgment on the child sacrificing and sexual immorality on top of a load of other stuff. Think of it being like gangerine, sometimes you have to remove a leg in order for the body to live on. God gave those people over 400 years to change - now that is patience. They did not and therefore God's judgement fell on them.

It is obvious that the writer of 2 Peter viewed Paul's writing as scripture. 2 Peter was written much later than I Cor., where we find the infamous "anti-gay" passage. I Cor. was written between 52-55 c.e. 2 Peter was written late in the first century, or early in the 2nd. After Paul's letter had circulated among the churches for that long, it could well have come to be regarded as scripture, even if not yet "canonized."
BUT...that has no bearing on whether Paul, himself, viewed his writing as anything other than a letter to a congregation.

Your reference to I Cor. is Paul's quotation of an earlier bit of scripture, which is a command that what God joins together, let no one separate. Of course Paul saw that as God's command and not his own.

Could Paul have known that he was inspired to write? Of course he did...but one can be inspired by God to write all kinds of things -- not just scripture.

Paul made no such distinction between his words and God's regarding homosexuality, possibly because the cultural taboo against homosexual acitivity was already so deeply imbedded in his own psyche.

We have to remember that Paul wasn't writing out of Roman culture, or Greek culture, or Sumerian culture. Paul wrote out of his native Hebraic culture, about a religion which was rooted in Hebraic culture. It may have been abhorrent to Paul, to think that an honorable man would act dishonorably with an equal, just because of his own culture. Even if one is being inspired to write something, one will still write through one's own cultural lens, and interpret the inspiration through one's own perspective! I never maintained that Paul's writing (or any other scripture) wasn't inspired...but I do maintain that it was all written through the writers' own cultural perspectives -- perspectives we do not necessarily share with them. We also have to remember that sin and law are very closely tied together: where there is no law, there is no sin.

What "God says" comes through the human medium always, and is always filtered by that human medium. Whatever God says to us is filtered down. Is sin "fixed?" No! The Muslims are religiously mandated to kill infidels in certain situations. Christians would call that sin, yet we both worship the same God. Sin is, and always has been a grey area, just as human law is mostly grey area.

It's obvious to me that the early writers saw God in a different way than we do. I think it's very, very dangerous to assume that, even though God does not change, neither do we. Because humanity changes, our perception of God changes, and therefore God appears to change. Because God inspires us to write things, or speak things, we do that from the slant of our own time and place in the world. It's dangerous to assume that the passage of time, the change of culture, and the growth of humanity cannot mitigate what has been perceived to be "God's word."

ust because someone a long time ago said that God said that homosexuality was an "abomination," doesn't mean that particular viewpoint can't (or hasn't) changed over time. We treat the Levitican law about mixed cloth as silly and outmoded. We treat the Levitican law about food preparation as silly and outmoded. In your model, we would have to keep all of it, because God said it, God wouldn't have said it if it werent' true for all people in all times, and if we don't keep it, then we're just living in sin. In my model, we're able to determine what falls in line with our understanding of God, and what no longer informs us. The homosexuality passage no longer informs us, and we should lend it no more credence than the passage about mixed cloth.

 

[Endless]

Sojourner - your arguement is perhaps the weakest one that i have seen. It undermines your whole faith. Let me further explain.

According to your position Sojourner there is no such thing as sin. How can there be, since one culture can claim something as a sin, and another culture claim the same thing not to be a sin. You never did answer the question as to whether child sacrificing was a sin, since the answer you must give is 'no', you then have to explain why God judged those people for something that could not have been rebellion against himself.

Is sin "fixed?" No! The Muslims are religiously mandated to kill infidels in certain situations. Christians would call that sin, yet we both worship the same God. Sin is, and always has been a grey area, just as human law is mostly grey area.

How sad Sojourner. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are many false gods - but i'm sure that was just how the hebrew writers saw it and there was just all worship of the same God. Sad, that you are able to condone the Muslim murdering his wife in an honour killing, or murdering someone who chose another religion. You say this is not wrong in God's eyes...interesting. For the same reason you would also agree that child sacrifice is not wrong in God's eyes...also interesting.

Tell me Sojourner, why exactly should you believe anything that was written in the Bible - since it was all for the hebraic culture and hence not applicable to any other culture. Just throw the Bible out of the window - Christ died not for the whole world, he only died for the Hebrews according to your logic. The law and what is and is not sin was only for them - therefore that is all Christ could have died for. No your position is unattenable, should someone come along and really challenge the implications of your logic your whole faith will be undefendable.

You agree that all scripture was inspired of God and yet you undermine this inspiration by saying that what was written was from a Hebraic cultural perspective. You do not realise that if God inspires something, then it is the truth no matter what the culture. Hence the reason God inspired Paul to write condemning homosexuality in the Roman culture.

BTW. That mixed cloth thing has absolutely nothing to do with sin...

We treat the Levitican law about mixed cloth as silly and outmoded. We treat the Levitican law about food preparation as silly and outmoded. In your model, we would have to keep all of it, because God said it, God wouldn't have said it if it werent' true for all people in all times, and if we don't keep it, then we're just living in sin.

Unless you actually read what the Bible has to say about that law and the purpose of that law and what happened to that law when Jesus died on the cross. Therefore God did say it and it wasn't (as the Bible shows) for all people in all times -for that law had nothing to do with the moral law, it wasn't addressing sin.

 

[CaptainXeroid]

/me peeks his head back in the thread he lost track of 2 weeks ago. Didn't this one have a topic a long time ago.

I skimmed back through it but did not see any specific details on what happened or any definitive evidence that the 'banning' even took place.

Anyway...I'm not going to join the current argument as it is wholly irrelevant to the original topic.

Just to recap....Jesus did not turn sinners away, and neither should we. He who is without sin cast the first stone.:162:

 

[michel]

/me peeks his head back in the thread he lost track of 2 weeks ago. Didn't this one have a topic a long time ago.

I skimmed back through it but did not see any specific details on what happened or any definitive evidence that the 'banning' even took place.

Anyway...I'm not going to join the current argument as it is wholly irrelevant to the original topic.

Just to recap....Jesus did not sinners away, and neither should we. He who is without sin cast the first stone.:162:

Exactly; the basis for any faith is to try and behave in the manner in which you would imagine the Deity would. In the case of Christianity, the question should always be "What would Christ have said/Done in this case".

Tell Gays they were not wwelcome in a Chuch?

 

[sojourner]

Sojourner - your arguement is perhaps the weakest one that i have seen. It undermines your whole faith. Let me further explain.

According to your position Sojourner there is no such thing as sin. How can there be, since one culture can claim something as a sin, and another culture claim the same thing not to be a sin. You never did answer the question as to whether child sacrificing was a sin, since the answer you must give is 'no', you then have to explain why God judged those people for something that could not have been rebellion against himself.


How sad Sojourner. The Bible makes it abundantly clear that there are many false gods - but i'm sure that was just how the hebrew writers saw it and there was just all worship of the same God. Sad, that you are able to condone the Muslim murdering his wife in an honour killing, or murdering someone who chose another religion. You say this is not wrong in God's eyes...interesting. For the same reason you would also agree that child sacrifice is not wrong in God's eyes...also interesting.

Tell me Sojourner, why exactly should you believe anything that was written in the Bible - since it was all for the hebraic culture and hence not applicable to any other culture. Just throw the Bible out of the window - Christ died not for the whole world, he only died for the Hebrews according to your logic. The law and what is and is not sin was only for them - therefore that is all Christ could have died for. No your position is unattenable, should someone come along and really challenge the implications of your logic your whole faith will be undefendable.

You agree that all scripture was inspired of God and yet you undermine this inspiration by saying that what was written was from a Hebraic cultural perspective. You do not realise that if God inspires something, then it is the truth no matter what the culture. Hence the reason God inspired Paul to write condemning homosexuality in the Roman culture.

BTW. That mixed cloth thing has absolutely nothing to do with sin...



Unless you actually read what the Bible has to say about that law and the purpose of that law and what happened to that law when Jesus died on the cross. Therefore God did say it and it wasn't (as the Bible shows) for all people in all times -for that law had nothing to do with the moral law, it wasn't addressing sin.

You're way off base here. You need to follow your own advice and read your Bible. The "mixed cloth thing" has directly to do with sin...God decreed that we not do that. If we, therefore, do it, then we sin. If, however, the "mixed cloth thing" no loonger applies because Jesus died on the cross, then the "homosexuality thing" goes out the window, too.

You're twisting my words and using skewed logic. Sin is a human construct. What one culture calls sin, another does not. That does not mean that, just because a culture condones something, I condone it, too. But I don't try to call it "sin." I just call it "sad and wrong."

I never said that the Bible wasn't applicable to all cultures. I said it had been written through the filter of a particular culure, and that, in order to glean the meaning, we must also read it through that same filter.

Yes, I do agree and assert that the scriptures are inspired...and I uplift them and give them their due attention by acknowledging the human means by which those inspirations came to the written page. You do not realize that truth has many perspectives. The writer sees one. The reader may see another. In order to get at the heart of the truth, we have to know what perspectives we're dealing with...otherwise it's all gobbldigook.

The heart of the truth at stake in this thread, is that the church was wrong in banning the homosexuals, based upon a cultural awareness that homsexuals are acceptable to God.

 

[Endless]

Tell Gays they were not wwelcome in a Chuch?

Well, he did make a whip and clear out the salespeople..but then who wouldn't right :149:
No offense intended if any people here are sales people .

Sojourner - there is a difference between the moral law - which was seen to apply to all of mankind and the ceremonial law which applied to the Israelites - which included the sacrifices and the other things they had to observe in order to 'separate' themselves from the people about them. What you are referring to are all the rules and regulations of the ceremonial law.

The Bible (which is God-breathed) tells me that sin is not a human construct, but disobediance/rebellion against God. If this was God breathed then what is sin and what is not must apply to the whole of mankind regardless of culture.

never said that the Bible wasn't applicable to all cultures. I said it had been written through the filter of a particular culure, and that, in order to glean the meaning, we must also read it through that same filter.

Definately, i agree totally with this Sojourner. However being inspired by God we must also look beyond the filter of the culture and realising that God is speaking to us through what he inspired the writers to write. The moment we start looking at something through just the culture's filter, we can fall into the trap of removing what we perceive to be 'just from the culture' because we don't like what we hear. When infact it may very well be the truth that we are removing because we believe it to be down to that particular culture.

The heart of the truth at stake in this thread, is that the church was wrong in banning the homosexuals, based upon a cultural awareness that homsexuals are acceptable to God.

I think banning is the wrong word - since banning has the sense of 'permanance' about it. They were disfellowshipped. But no doubt the church said that if they repent and recognise their sin (whether we see that as sin or not) then they will be welcomed back. This does not just happen to homosexuals - it happens to believers who live in sin and refuse to accept that what they are doing is sin, when the bible clearly teaches it.

 

[sojourner]

there is a difference between the moral law - which was seen to apply to all of mankind and the ceremonial law which applied to the Israelites - which included the sacrifices and the other things they had to observe in order to 'separate' themselves from the people about them. What you are referring to are all the rules and regulations of the ceremonial law.

There is no distinction in the Levitican scripture that the sexual stuff was "moral law" and the cloth stuff was "ceremonial." The Isrealites were simply told to do what God told them to do. If we're not going to "read in to the scriptures," then we're not going to read into them a catagorization that simply is not there.
If you note, the verse pertaining to homosexuality does not include lesbian activity. How do you explain that? Is lesbian sex OK? How is gay male sex any more "immoral" than lesbian sex? Could it be because of the honor/shame paradigm? I think that the only proper way to look at this passage is through the cultural lens of that time.

However being inspired by God we must also look beyond the filter of the culture and realising that God is speaking to us through what he inspired the writers to write. The moment we start looking at something through just the culture's filter, we can fall into the trap of removing what we perceive to be 'just from the culture' because we don't like what we hear.

In order to "look beyond the filter of the culture," we have to get inside the writers' heads. We have to come out of our own culture and get into theirs. Once we have done our best to negate the filters -- or at least to define them, we can determine what the passage is really saying. Why is it so hard for you to understand that the writers wrote through their own cultural lens?...and that we read through our own cultural lens?

What's going on here is that someone has banned some Christians from attending their church, because they failed to look at these passages in the proper manner. They negated Christ's teaching about hospitality, acceptance, forbearance, and unity in favor of a misinterpretation.

 

[Endless]

There is no distinction in the Levitican scripture that the sexual stuff was "moral law" and the cloth stuff was "ceremonial." The Isrealites were simply told to do what God told them to do. If we're not going to "read in to the scriptures," then we're not going to read into them a catagorization that simply is not there.

What?? Sojourner you are greatly mistaken. Perhaps you should actually look at the 'law' through the cultural lense of the people and see how they preceived it. There was the moral law which they viewed as a standard for all people - ie. what is and what is not sin. And there was the ceremonial law with all its rules and regulations which applied to the Israelites. The purpose of the ceremonial law was to show that they could never live up to God's holy standard (hence the reason they had to keep on sacrificing) but all of this was a foreshadow of what Christ would accomplish on the cross.
Have a read of Hebrews chapter 8 and see for yourself - the book of Hebrews focuses an awful lot on the law that the Israelites followed and explains why it needs no longer to be followed after Christ died for us on the cross. But this obviously has no implications of there no longer being such a thing as sin -since the Bible still talks about it. If there were no law then there would not be any sin - but since there is still sin talked about and taught in the New Testament after Christ died...well it fits in perfectly with the law that was nailed to the cross being the ceremonial law - because Christ foreshadowed it. It's no longer needed having served it's purpose. I'm not about to go into a load of detail about this, but for someone claiming to having such an awareness of culture you do seem to have missed how the law was seen through those living in that culture.

If you note, the verse pertaining to homosexuality does not include lesbian activity. How do you explain that? Is lesbian sex OK? How is gay male sex any more "immoral" than lesbian sex? Could it be because of the honor/shame paradigm? I think that the only proper way to look at this passage is through the cultural lens of that time.

Of course it isn't ok - we have Paul condemning it who was from that culture. In anycase just because the Bible doesnt specifically classify a certain act as a sin doesn't mean it isn't one - what about peadophilia? Drugs? etc etc.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that the writers wrote through their own cultural lens?...and that we read through our own cultural lens?

It doesn't matter -if the Bible was God breathed and it says something is sin (rebellion against God) then no matter what the culture of the people was, if God breathed it then he didn't lie. Because in essense that is what you are saying God must have done - he inspired something which was a lie - homosexuality was not an abomination.
Again you are looking from the viewpoint that their culture dictated God's word - when perhaps you should consider the point that God's word dictated their own culture. It was certainly a different culture to the one in the countries about them - whose culture it was to practise child sacrificing, homosexuality and sexual immorality etc etc. Therefore their beliefs were based on what God inspired them to write - and their culture was based on what God inspired. It is not the other way around - their culture did not inspire what God breathed.

What's going on here is that someone has banned some Christians from attending their church, because they failed to look at these passages in the proper manner. They negated Christ's teaching about hospitality, acceptance, forbearance, and unity in favor of a misinterpretation.

They disfellowshipped believers who refused to acknowledge that what they were doing was wrong - based on what God inspired in the Bible. They did look at it in the proper manner - because the Hebrew culture was based on what God had said - not the other way around. This is also the reason why your faith crumbles when you apply your own logic to it - it cannot stand up for the reasons i gave in a post further on up.
No, you will find that God's word defined the culture - not the other way around.